Agreed! What would be the best approach (I'm a PhD student and vector-borne disease epidemiologist)?
[Survey Taken Thread]
By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.
Let's make these comments a reply to this post. That way we continue the tradition, but keep the discussion a bit cleaner.
Yar, have taken the scurvy survey, says I!
There's only two items on that list that are artificial intelligence related. One is an introductory survey textbook, and the other is really about probabilistic reasoning with some examples geared towards AI. The rest has about as much to do with AI as, say, the C++ programming manual.
Your definition what counts as "AI related" seems to be narrower than mine, but fine. I trust readers can judge whether the linked resources are of interest.
What does that have to do with artificial intelligence?
... quite a lot, no?
Upvoted to encouraging people to get hands-on. Learning is good. Trying to go for a higehr level of understanding in whatever you do is a core rationality skill.
Sadly you stopped there though. For the sake of discussion, I've heard Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach is a good book on the subject. Hopefully a discussion could start here; perhaps there's something flawed, or perhaps the book is outdated. If anyone here, and I'm looking at you, the AI, AGI, FAI, IDK and other acronym-users whom I can't keep up with can provide some more directions for the potentially aspiring AI researchers lurking around, it would be very appreciated.
There's also a pretty big overlap with the intelligence community which is briefly discussed in Superforecasting (the good judgement project was funded by IARPA).
(The alignment of both goals and methods between CFAR and the IC is, I think, under-exploited by both.)
'I Update on Evidence'
"Update" is LW jargon, for most people "updating" is what their computer does at inopportune times.
It might be a bit obscure, but it's not LW jargon!
Their approach reduces to an anti-epistemic affect-heuristic, using the ugh-field they self-generate in a reverse affective death spiral (loosely based on our memeplex) as a semantic stopsign, when in fact the Kolmogorov distance to bridge the terminological inferential gap is but an epsilon.
I got waaay too far into this before I realized what you were doing... so well done!
Why limit it to the Americas? And can a lethal mutation be self-perpetuating?
Why limit it to the Americas?
Proof of concept, capacity, and feasibility. I'd love to see this done for all disease-carrying mosquitoes, but you've got to start somewhere.
can a lethal mutation be self-perpetuating?
Yes. I'm actually not sure if this would work at a continental scale (or rather, how many modified mosquito releases would be required, is this number infeasible, etc). This is something I'm interested in modelling.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
For you I suggest something that also advances your career so that you can devote more time to the project. If the answer to this isn't clear I suggest talking to your professors asking what they suggest. Another approach is to become a literal superhero. Assemble a group of scientists who on their own could eradicate mosquitoes and just do it. Don't wait for official approval.
The appeal of this route is obvious, but I don't think it should be discussed on a public forum.